pom, from what I've read about that film, it uses a C-41 colour neg process, but has only one monochrome layer with no mask. So if you find a lab that can handle C-41 properly it should be OK. If Ilford goes belly-up again, Kodak makes something similar in higher speed. Have you had a look at the scanning process yet?

Nope, sorry. Was shooting a wedding on Thursday, a Barmitzva on Friday and am busy processing 1500 RAW files while trying to update my price structures to include some great new albums and leather CD covers I've sourced. In other words bit too busy with day to day stuff to indulge research!

I'll get there....eventually!

I think I'll shoot a roll of XP2 and maybe roll of HP5 or whatever I can find in the cupboard, have them developed and see how they scan. Bit more controlled that way than digging out a neg strip from years back.

Chirs_T: in general you are making relevant observations, but my specific experience is considerably more optimistic than yours. To start with your last point first, yes you are right the Lumix is noisier than would have preferred, but with good digital exposure technique, working in the lower end of the ISO range and judicious use of Noise Ninja on raw files, noise is very well mitigated. Another really neat feature of the Lumix is the real-time pre-capture histogram one can activate on the LCD screen. I could use this camera as a digital light meter for my Canon 1Ds, which doesn't have such a feature!

As for scanners - the time one invests doing this work makes it only sensible to buy absolutely the possible best scanner and software for the purpose that one can afford. I invested in a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and eventually bought Silverfast Studio Ai to drive it, because I found this combination gave me the best results I could wish to obtain workin with colour negatives. It wasn't cheap, but with the throughput one accumulates, the cost is amortized over alot of work. I find this combination delivers very sharp output and very good colour, once properly configured - and that is the key. Into Photoshop, one needs noise reduction and sharpening programs that work well for film grain. After testing, I found the combination of Neat Image and PK Sharpener Pro do the best job I could achieve, and I can vouch for the resulting print quality at least to A3 - I don't print larger than that so I can't vouch beyond A3. But some of my images are considerably cropped, so I know full frames would do well larger than A3.

My main complaint with all this isn't the cost of the investment which can be high, isn't the image quality potential which can be excellent, but simply the sheer amount of time it consumes. As I write this, I have Photoshop open working with images from my digital cameras and from the scanner. It just keeps striking me over and over and over again what kind of quantum leap in processing efficiency and time saving one gets with digital. It's in a different ball park.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63840\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the LX-1 comments. Perhaps the noise problem is not as bad as described in the reviews.

My comments about scanning is not meant to scare the novice away, but to prepare them with a realistic expectation. The key point to remember is that scanning adds an additional generation (which introduces problems that deteriorate the image quality) in the process. I did miss mentioning the time involved. Once spent, there is no way to recoup it. Shooting digital and skipping scanning is a great time saver.

Thanks for the LX-1 comments. Perhaps the noise problem is not as bad as described in the reviews.

The key point to remember is that scanning adds an additional generation (which introduces problems that deteriorate the image quality) in the process. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64070\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Chris - deteriorate image quality relative to what? Having the negatives printed using wet-darkroom processes? Well-scanned and well-processed colour negatives can print beautifully - all under your own control. A print out of my Epson 4800 will stack-up at least as well - and really in just about any respect I can think of that matters - better than most of what you'd get from historic processes.

I think I'll shoot a roll of XP2 and maybe roll of HP5 or whatever I can find in the cupboard, have them developed and see how they scan. Bit more controlled that way than digging out a neg strip from years back.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agree - no question these materials must have improved greatly over the past few decades! You'll get a better appreciation of today's capabilities. What I did the other day was simply what I could do with what I had on hand, just to get some indicators about how it may work.

I've shot quite a bit in Israel since about '96, right across the digital divide with F5s, N90s, D1x, Kodak SLRn and D2x, working with an archaeological dig near Beth Shean (www.rehov.org)

I also shot a bit on my own hook in Jerusalem. I think your project idea is terrific -- and there's a great history of Jerusalem and Holy Land photography that goes back as far as photography does. I can't think of a better city for it.

My experience, though, is that you're not going to hold both light and shade in Jerusalem, especially in places like the Old City, no matter what you shoot, so you don't have to worry about it. There's just too much range, at least, in the summer; you might do well on those rainy days in winter and spring, but to me, rainy days don't say "Jerusalem." On the other hand, as a wedding photographer, you should be well equipped to handle the lighting problems, which I would say would be about the same as between a small dark English chapel and a bright June English day...or perhaps a stop or two brighter than that, given all those white stone walls.

The biggest problem I'd have with shooting film is the processing -- B&W processing is really getting tough in Israel, the last time we checked, and was *very* expensive. We checked because we really didn't need color for most of the scholarly publications, and we were somehow under the illusion that B&W might be cheaper. Wrong. I'm sure there must be pro labs in Tel Aviv, if not in Jerusalem itself, but we also had variable results with our color processing, mostly just from poor handling. (On the other hand, we were always trying to get it done as inexpensively as we could, which might have been part of the problem.) If you decide to go with film, I'd make a really serious effort to nail down a good lab immediately.

What I'm saying is, I'd think hard before deciding to go with film.

I'm currently making a transition from my Nikon gear (D2x) to Leica (shooting a digital R-D1 for the moment.) The R-D1 is a nice camera, although with some handling peculiarities -- Sean Reid, who reviews it on this forum, and more extensively on his own forum, uses it for pro work. It's 6mp, and a good 6mp, but it really can't yet match the top-end Nikons or Canons for big-print quality. The upcoming 10mp Leica will do that. It should be out in September, for $5,000. That should be in your range, if you're also thinking of buying a Nikon scanner for a film camera...If you were thinking of a book, though, as opposed to shooting for an exhibition where you'd need large prints, the R-D1 would probably work.

But the best thing about the Leica (any Leica-based camera, R-D1 or film) would be the lenses. An f/1.4 Summilux in 35mm or 50mm would be great for sniping shop photos in the Old City. I've been doing that in an old river town in Minnesota, and they work great. Also, the neew Leica will be a 1.33 crop, so a 50 will become a ~66. A Noctilux would become an f/1 66mm short tele and I'm not sure there'd be a better lens for low-light, shadowy photography...and the cropped sensor will even minimize some of the Noctilux's film problems.

From your posts I assume you're an Israeli of one flavor or another, but I'll tell you this anyway: if you really want to shoot invisibly, with any kind of camera, my suggestion would be to dress like an American fundamentalist Christian when you're shooting: short-sleeved shirt, khaki slacks, white Tilly canvas hat, fanny pack, wooden cross on a leather string around your neck, and a smile. Nobody, Israeli or Arab, will pay the slightest attention to you. A person I know, who shall go forever unnamed, smuggled a TV into Israel dressed like that, although he also stuck a baby on top of the TV box. Not even customs wanted to talk to him...

Now if only Contax had stayed alive and made a G3, keep everything the same function wise as the G2, just a 1.6X 8-10 megapixel chip, a 2" screen with histogram/highlights preview and an ability to shoot RAW onto CF cards.<snip>

I was almost on the point today of buying a G2 for street B&W work but I didn't realise that I would be paying the same again on a decent scanner (no point in using contax lenses but scanning sub par, especially as I would want 16X20" prints). I really liked everything about it from the functions to the noise level and the very suprisingly good AF speed, it fits well in my hand and the ability to dial in hyperfocal distance in manual focus which can't be knocked off, while changing to AF and back with the flick of a switch for shooting with wider apertures really impressed me. <snip> The G2 was on offer for £500 including the 35mm and 90mm in pristine condition for the price of the Konica body alone and given the great contax lenses, the nice AF (I'm not the worlds fastest manual focuser) and everything else it looked to be a sure winner despite being larger.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've owned a G2 (and a G1 before that) for many years and I can honestly say that I've never enjoyed using another camera more. It's great, it handles great, it nice and compact and the lenses are outstanding. To my thinking, even a 5D can't compare with the output of the G2 (the Canon lenses are so disappointing in comparison). It's a shame Contax didn't release the G3 before Kyocera decided to exit the market. There is a fully designed G3 sitting on the shelf (designed around the same time as the N1, and finished after the release ofthe N1 & N Digital cameras). It's film, though, not digital. But that's fine, it's a fine performer with film and the enhancements of updated model would have been quite welcome. A digital G was not thought to be possible due to the lenses (specifically the wide angles) but it seems to me, as Zeiss did for the Zeiss Ikon, the new lenses could be designed and built to suit the requirements of a digital body/sensor.But used G2's and lenses are an incredible bargain these days. I would probably stay away from the 35mm/f2.0 lens and stick with the 28, 45 and 90mm lenses (and the outstanding 21mm if you like)

Quote

Film may be dying but possibly due to the heavy marketing at regular consumers and the death of so many companies dealing in this kind of market, the rangefinder niche seems to be passing by with very little if anything to replace it other than consumer P&S cameras with tiny sensors (have you seen the facial tones from those things?) <snip>Another point that I've been wondering is if in 5 years from now film will be a viable option economically either even if I were to invest in a decent scanner. Things are moving so fast, huge and groundbreaking changes are rocking the photographic world so often, will it be affordable to shoot B&W or even any film in the future? Will the economic realities make film disappear faster than we imagine whatever the cost to the pros? It's not them funding the film market so it might not be them who can hold it up. Ilford amost died maybe because it wasn't the regular consumer film, even Kodak is closing more factories by the year and they are the consumer film (gold). Would buying a G2 and scanner be silly in light of this? Hmmmm.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess we have to wait for the Leica Digital M to see how the rangefinder niche might survive. (The Epson RD-1 being somewhat inadequate). I think there is definately room for a digital G type camera (there was a rumour than Canon had developed a digitalrangefinder) a digtla Zeiss Ikon and the Leica. More DSLR models just are not an effective substitute for a good rangefinder. However, I think there will be ample and sufficient supplies of B&W film availabel for a long time to come. Even if Fuji and Kodak pull out (and close production rather than sell it) there are a number of small B&W film producers that will be able to supply users (Maco, Foma, Efke/Adox, Forte, and Ilford is out of bankruptcy and restructured). I think B&W film will be around for at least as long as our cameras will last.

Thanks John, I used to manage a photo lab in Bet Shemesh and know all about the processing there, if I was to shoot B&W it would be to process by hand, you have to send off to the big labs (used to be Agfa central) in Tel Aviv and I never saw one come back without overprocessing and scratches. The general quality of processing is also awful, even the 'pro' labs haven't heard of the concept of wearing gloves!

As you might be able to see from the post nearby about the guy wanting to change from his Leicas, I've discovered the Pentax range of cameras which with the proposed set of pancake primes coupled with the tiny and P&S looking bodies, may well be an admirable solution.

I know all about 'looking like a tourist' for being ignored, it gets you ignored even when you're trying to talk to someone! unless that is the Israeli wants to try out his Pidgin English learnt from films which can be hilarious. I lived there for a while and am a citizen, I speak the language fluently and integrated well into the culture before marrige to an Englih girl yanked me back to civilisation I'm still not sure what would be a better stratagy, be Israeli and be 'one of us' or be a tourist and be ignored. Hopefully I will have a long time to practise and work on the project which I'm thinking of calling 'Timeless Jerusalem'.

If you dig around in some of the antiquarian book shops in London, you may come across a book called "Photo-Gravures of the Holy Land" (Cranston and Stowe, 1890) and also the newer "Photographing Jerusalem: The Image of the City in Nineteenth Century Photography" by Issam Nassar, (East European Monographs, Boulder, distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1997.) Pretty interesting stuff, if you have an antiquarian turn of mind, and like taking pictures in Jerusalem. There are also a lot of old books like "Picturesque Palestine" (2 vols, large format) which don't have photos, but have engravings based on photos, that can spark off a lot of ideas...

Actually been studying a book today on Jewish modes of dress through the centuries, facinating how little has changed in real terms to what can easily be seen on the streets of Jerusalem today. It is the most incredibly diverse city.

RAW capture delivers best possible color and processing flexibility, but locks the camera up for 10 seconds after each shot. This is not a camera for the trigger-happy among us. The newest update to ACR supports the camera, so that's what I've been using for my comparisons and evaluations.

Noise is OK, noticeably worse than my Canon DSLRs, but still good enough to make decent-looking prints. 50-100 ISO are quite clean, 400 is about like a 1D-MkII @ 1600.

The lens is pretty good, about a 35-100mm equivalent, minor CA in the corners (easily correctable), barrel/pincushion distortion not really noticeable.

The LCD on the back is big and very nice. Canon needs to steal some for the 1D-MkIII. It doesn't fold out or anything like that, though.

The body is a nice compromise between the mini-SLR form factor and the credit card sized superthins. It's big enough to get a grip on, but still small enough to fit in a shirt pocket.

glad you finally have it. how would you compare it with the Sony DSC-V3 (i know the V3 was released long time ago at much higher price, but since they're in teh same class and i'm planning to get it, i would like to hear your oppinions)